This nice sword got posted on MyArmoury a couple of days ago. My initial response is below.

You found that on Craigslist!!?? If I wasn't in Thailand I'd pay more attention to CL ads! Nice sword!

At any rate, my initial thought is English, very late 1500s/early 1600s (assuming that someone hasn't done an absolutely great job of forgery on the basket). There are a number of English characteristics on the hilt that are similar to other hilts of the period, like the quillons, which are actually fairly long, but bent back upon themselves.

The main item that would make me think Scottish is the pommel; it has rectangular slots to receive the ends of the hilt, which, as far as I know, may be an indicator of Scots manufacture. The little "langets" at the blade shoulder is also something that hints at Scotland.

Interestingly, look at the crude, undecorated, though nicely shaped, pommel and the rather nice workmanship on the basket. And yet everything appears to have a similar amount of pitting, and the pommel shape is certainly consistent with the early 1600s.

So I guess my vote is English, as per paragraph 2 above. That is not a dogmatic statement, though: feel free to sway me to Scotland with evidence!

By the way, how long is the blade?

--ElJay

Thanks very much Eljay! I would not have imagined this hilt being that early!
I agree though, there are very English factors but the pommel attachment method rings Scottish. Also, the scallop shell ornament, any thoughts?
Very Spanish.....not something often seen in English use as far as I have known.
Cathey looking forward to your results!! Your data base is phenomenal !!!

Still a Mystery
 

Hi Guys

Nothing in my data base so this one has me a bit puzzled. It appears to combine elements from at least three early swords featured in Mazansky. No20A Certainly a very similar basket, VII Pear-Shaped Pommel page 23, A15d again same pommel, but very different basket as is the case with A17.

I agree with Eljay this is an early sword but the degree of sophistication of the hilt as apposed to No 20A has thrown me. I am going to try and get contact details for Cryril Mazansky and see if he has access to better pictures of Sword No20A, particularly the underside of the guard. Its times like this that I really miss the Baron of Earlshall.

With regard to British or Scottish refer to post #263, whilst it has features generally attributed to both the seating on the blade has me leaning towards Scottish at this stage.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

Slitted Guard basket hilted
 

Hi Guys

The Baron has come to our aid after all. It appears this basket hilt dates between 1575-1600 and is referred to by the Baron of Earlshall in his book "The Scottish Basket Hilted Sword Volume 1 c1450 to 1600" as a Slitted Guard basket hilt. The pages to refer to if you have the book are 187-270.

It is described here as Scottish due to the blade slot begin larger than the tang.

Great find as I have never seen one of these in the flesh before, please share more pictures and details such as blade length and width etc.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

Slitted Guard Basket Hilted
 

Humble apologies, everyone, I have been off line for a bit. Work responsibilities has a way of interrupting a perfectly good hobby sometimes!
Thanks to you all for jumping in and offering your knowledge and being so helpful. My knowledge base was just enough to know I had something I needed to take seriously.

However unofficial, I really like the name Slitted Guard Basket Hilt - just nice to have some sort of name to put to this sword.

To answer some questions raised…
I totally agree with leaving this thing alone. I have no intention of “cleaning” it more than in the photos. The active rust is removed it is lightly oiled ant there I’ll stop. Before a police career in forensicscience I was trained as a conservator and worked in a national museum so I have a complete aversion to over cleaning historic objects rather than preserving them. So no worries this sword won’t be messed with.

Re measurements… Over all length 41.25”(1047mm), Blade length 35.1” (894mm), Blade width 1 9/16 (40mm). It is hard to describe how flexible the blade is. I would not describe it as stiff. It has about the same flex as several my mortuary swords but the blade is wider and thus somewhat heaver. (I don't actually collect 17th century swords but have ended up with some mortuary swords which I love and understand better.)

I have added some photos of the blade markings. One photo of the blade as found the rest after a light clean and oiling which, ironically creates reflection that makes them harder to photograph. The markings in the central fuller are the same on both sides of the blade. They appear to be an alternating series of letters I expect more decoration than having any meaning.
X X X o X C X o X C X o X X X
Forgive the poor quality of photos I only have my cell phone handy right now and the lighting is challenging. If there are any indications of blade age or maker from such marks I would be very keen to hear opinions.

Thanks for the references and page numbers particularly to "The Scottish Basket Hilted Sword Volume 1 c1450 to 1600" pages 187-270. I don’t have this reference but will try an interlibrary loan next week and see if I can track one down.

I will attempt to get some more phots up in a few days just for interest and will post one of the original terrible Craigslist photos just for fun so you can see what I first saw that got me in the car driving.

Thanks everyone. I so am enjoying this rather steep learning curve.

Thank you for adding more detail and specifications on this phenomenal example! I cannot emphasize enough how important this find is, and I am so grateful that you have shared it here.
As Cathey has noted, the book by the Baron of Earlshall is a powerfully important reference which has brought forward the knowledge and key details on these weapons.

The running wolf on the blade is actually believed to be a kind of talismanic device placed on blades made in Solingen, and became a recognized symbol associated with quality. The 'anchor' (cross with multiple arms) is also a device often used on Spanish blades and adopted in German blade motif.

The curious X's and letters are German applications often imitating the indecipherable groupings of such letters found on many blades. These are typically magic/talismanic acrostics or letters with sometimes numeric values. Often these were patriotic slogans or religious invocations which were 'coded' in this manner. The 'X' represents a cross, and in the position of the letter X may have been perceived as St. Andrews cross in Scotland, and as such among favored symbolism just as the famed 'ANDREA FERARA' markings.

I have a sword (presumably 18thC Solingen made blade) with a motto stamped in the single fuller on each side of the blade. Between each letter in the motto is an ”o” separating them. So I think the o in Bakerbarang’s sequence of letters may be meant as separators.

Indeed I think you are right. These repeated 'letters' (usually X's) are intended as separators in a punctuated manner between these often complex acrostics.
The 'anchor' was used as a terminating element as well at the end of such phrases, names etc. in fullers originally with Spanish blades.

On earlier Frankish blades, such as in the 'Ulfberhrt' period, the cross was often placed as enclosure to this and other names in this same convention.

Slitted Guard Basket Hilt - Condition as found
 

Just for fun…
Just so you can see what I saw on Craig’s list. The photo shows two of the swords. (the other one in the photo was a William IV pipe back with broken grip and the blade “sharpened” by some artist with a grinder!!) Not knowing much about basket hilts, what actually influenced me more was the outline of the blade. It just looked like an old blade with the rounded point - so I figured I’d gamble and go for a drive to see it. The house was dark but what I could see, I liked. I bought it and walked out to the car and took it out of it’s garbage bag for a proper look in the daylight. At that point I realized I may have landed on a really nice sword. I took some photos in the car and emailed them to a friend immediately asking what he thought. He indicated it was old and likely 18th century with what could be a 17th century blade. I was thrilled!
The photos from the car show the condition as found. All told, very well preserved. Not part of a collection, not understood, but fortunately not “sharpened” by the guy with the grinder! I’m amazed that this thing, while lightly rusted and missing the grip, does not appear to have been “improved” by anyone over the years. All the more amazing given that it appears to be a late 16th century weapon – that is a lot of years to have escaped being made into a fire place poker. I’m thrilled it is now found, preserved and, thanks to you all, being appreciated. I, like all of you is suspect, have stories about "the one that got away" I'm so glad I was actually able to catch this one.

Over all photo.
 

Cathey, you had asked for an overall photo to go with the measurements. - sorry I for got about that. Here is a photo.

Baker, THANK YOU so much for this story!!!
This one did not get away thanks to you and we can all learn from it!! :)
It truly is magnificent, and I can just hear the stories it wants to tell.

Scottish basket hilt ca. 1700
 

A Scottish basket hilt broadsword with 'S' bars incorporated in the hilt. The rounded thin bars indicative of the Stirling smiths. Leather grip with a single thin wire wrap. 31" blade marked with four Wundes king's heads each side of blade, possibly attributed to Peter Wundes the Elder (1580-1630) or Peter the Younger (1630-1685).

Based on the pommel style and primitive heart punches, it appears to date to the first quarter of the 18th c.

This type of blade with the king's heads and the shallow fullers either side of the centerline are usually engraved "Andria Ferara" between the king's head stamps. Are there any traces of this on your sword?

--ElJay

Hello Eljay and thanks for responding. The sword is not in hand yet, but when it does arrive, I will search closely for the Ferara marking. From the pic, there might also be a faded orb (?) to the right of one of the heads, but my weary eyes might be playing tricks... :o
Mark

Good Evening, This is my first post and first basket hilted sword which I recent bought, any comments or advice will be gratefully received.

The sword from my limited research I believe dates from around 1600 ?? and is English, with a Solingen blade made by Clemens Deinger which is stamped to both sides of the blade, it appears to have brass or similar decoration remaining in the stamp marks of some letters or symbols, it also has a stamp on the ricasso of a bird in a shield shaped armourers mark, the blade is 36” or 91.5 cm long and 1 1/16” or 2.7 cm at its widest point and of a backsword style, it is still sharp, there are no fullers.

The pommel is a solid spherical shape, there are no decorations on the two shields of the hilt and no apparent makers mark, the grip has its wires intact and in good condition with 3 separate types of wire thickness, there are Turks heads knots top and bottom. There is only one screw holding the hilt to the pommel.

I have noticed that one of Cathey’s many swords post 162 has a blade by Clemens Dinger which also appears to have a number of similarities in the shape of the hilt as mine, the blade is very different being a broadsword with several fullers.

I have a copy of 1000 Marks of European Blademakers and the similarities between the spelling of Clemens Deinger on my blade and Clemens Dinger on Cathey’s blade are striking with the N’s being reversed and both having a bird as there symbol in a shield stamp on the ricasso, is it possible that my blade with Deinger which appears a simpler design is slightly earlier than Cathey’s when for some reason they had dropped the E and developed a finer Swan shaped stamp also seen on the ricasso in addition to the bird shield stamp. Obviously over time trademarks change and newer sharper images could be stamped in addition.

According to Lenkiewicz, Clemens Dinger traded in Solingen between 1590 and 1617 during which period it appears to me that Deinger dropped the E and became Dinger and the swan stamp was developed later ??.

I have tried to obtain a copy of Solinger Schwertschiede des 16 und 17 Jahrhunderts und Ihre Erzeugnisse by Weyersberg from Ken Trotman but he has sold out and will not be reprinting any more so I am unaware of what if anything Weyersberg knows about Clemens Deinger or Dinger of this period, any assistance would be appreciated, Cheers Bob.

Welcome to our forum Bob :) .
Great sword you show us. Let us see what the members have to say about it.

Hi Fernando, Thank you for allowing me to join the forum and make a post, this place is full of interesting swords and much much more, time for me to browse some more.
See you around, Cheers Bob.

Hello Bob, and welcome to the forum.
Your basket hilt indeed has resemblances in the hilt form to a number of examples. It must be remembered that these kinds of nuances are pretty much the closest to any sort of specific identification with these swords, as there were not regulated patterns but simply favored designs.

This seems to be a hilt for British dragoon use about mid 18th century but possibly earlier. The spherical pommel seems an earlier affectation and the screw attachment of quillons was characteristically English. However, as military swords were being made in garrison towns in Scotland for Scottish forces in British service, it is hard to distinguish.

As always, swords were basically assembled in these locations using mostly German blades, and the hilts produced by various makers and shops,.
In "British Basket Hilted Swords" (Mazansky) there are examples (p.141, and p.81 (D10) in which the hilt plates have similar 'notching' and were noted c. 1750s.

In the case of the blade , I found good reference to the markings in "European Makers of Edged Weapons, Their Marks: by Staffan Kinman, 2015.
This is one of the most comprehensive and detailed books on markings in recent years and well augments the Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962) with newer evidence and details.
On p.104:
A sword with standing swan in cartouche and inscription CLEMENS DEINGER was carried by King Gustaf II Adolf at Dirschau in 1627 during the Polish campaign.
It is noted that a reference was made in 1640, to a 'decrepit swordsmith Clemens Dinger', which of course suggests he was at end of his days by then. Perhaps the 'N' was inadvertently reversed )?).There appears to be a son carrying on in Solingen after with variations of the swan etc.

In my thinking, the roughly applied name with appropriate crosses and the swan mark may suggest the Clemens Deinger the older, and place the blade c. 1640 or earlier.

Whatever the case, I would say this blade was in use for obviously a very long time, and perhaps, as a heirloom found its way into a cavalry officers sword of mid 18th century. This was very often the case for Scottish officers in the British cavalry.

Hello Jim, Thank you for your reply.

I have a copy of Mazansky and discounted both D10 p81 and p141 as they have additional rear guard extensions and wrist guards which are absent from my hilt. I would approximate the overall style and shape, appears to me to be similar to B1C page 67 which dates from 1610-40.

I fully accept that these hilts will have been made all over the UK and at best we are guessing, I agree that it is munitions quality and a trooper would have been please to have had it at the time. Each hilt in Mazansky are unique to the maker and no doubt the purchaser.

My rational for Deinger the elder was simply your rational in reverse, the simply style of the blade, no fullers and stamping of a bird in a shield mark and no swan mark suggests early work, if Catheys was slightly later and by the same maker then we know that the E has been dropped but the reversed N still exist, the Swan mark in addition to the bird shield stamp are his trade marks or those of his son, they also show up on the 1627 blade which I was unaware of, does it still exist it would be interesting to compare marks.

The 1640 quote decrepit maker Clemens Deinger reference could easily have been the younger, if his father, the elder worked from 1590-1617 then assuming he started his business at 30 he would be 80 or more in 1640 a gigantic age then, his son would have been well in his 50-60's more likely his son in my opinion, all assuming they are the same family.

Isnt history wonderful, as Clemens was a popular name then but not now. Cheers Bob.

Thought I'd add my two cents (or maybe a tuppenny).

Interesting, I shall attempt to add a thought on the mix and matching world then. What a mess the sword mfg. was in at the end of the 18c! England over-extended on three fronts, adoption of a set 1796 pattern for swords was imposed to replace the mess to try to sort out all the variations into a more uniform mess, to increase supply which was falling behind, at least for troopers and ground pounders, Navy and officers came later. Officers had a wide leeway in selecting their swords, as they were and are still never 'issued' but bought privately.n Even std. Post 1796 blades varied amongst officers, as long as the hilts looked vaguely true to the patterns from a distance.

My 'American' revolutionary sword was originally a French dragoon sword, had part of it's brass 'basket' removed, possibly due to damage, in the transition to American service. British Royalist/Royal Dragoon swords were also made by Pooley or Pussey (sp?) in New York based on English 4-slot designs but a round grip and a urn pommel. You see replicas in the Mel Gibson film used by the wicked UK Dragoon leader. The film history is suspect, but the swords were fairly correct.

Mine was discussed HERE a while back and may be a naval variant. Oh what a tangled web we weave, etc.

Very good points Bob, and interesting to see our own versions of ratiocination in unison, and well noted on the age issue! I have reached out to see if I can get more information on the 1627 King Gustaf sword so hopefully I can add here.

Wayne, well observed on the 'mix and match' sword production situation in Great Britain prior to the latter 18th c. Basically swords were 'produced' (assembled) by 'cutlers' who used of course primarily imported blades while they fashioned hilts and scabbards.
The 'American' swords of the Revolution period were of course mostly British forms, and as George Nuemann ("Swords and Blades of the American Revolution", 1973) well shows, a hodge podge of Continental European swords including German, French, Spanish and sundry others.

The New York swords you mention were the famed 'Potter' (not Harry!) sabers of the four slot form, and well noted on the spurious Tarleton history in the film though swords were OK.

Thanks for that Jim, I had a minor brain fart :rolleyes:, I'll remember (Harry) Potter tho.

Hi Jim and Wayne, Thanks for replies it would be interesting to know if the 1627 sword still exists to check out the stamps.

If my sword is pre or around the English Civil War time 1642-1651 then which side would have had Basket hilts or was it simply a case of bring what you have and choose a side.

Basket Hilts, Mortuary swords were in fashion and obviously the Rapier and Short swords were very popular never mind Blades from one era being re-hilted with a more modern style. Reworking old swords has happened for centuries, family swords being upgraded.

Would enlisted men have been given a hanger for infantry and cavalry would get a sword of some description, it appears that even organised armies had numerous options.

I have often wondered, in the British army officers and gentlemen bought their own swords I assume pre 1750 they could buy what they wanted either a Rapier, Broadsword or Backsword or were there regulations then giving guidance.

I assume that people often had more than one sword anyway, as the occasion dictated.

History is so interesting................for some people !! Cheers Bob.

History, for many of us....is ADDICTING! :)

In history, war, battles etc. there are no fine lines, rules or categories in 'sides' in conflicts. During the English civil wars (a comprehensive term to describe not only the primary conflict, but many rebellions and insurgences before, after and during.........weapons were obtained by any means.
The well known Hounslow shops producing swords were taken over by Cromwell, and many of the makers left to go with the Royalists at shops in Oxford and London, many remained at Hounslow (though Cromwell turned the mills into powder mills).

While the 'Royalists' were regarded as 'dandies', cavaliers, they were of course inclined to more elegant rapiers etc. while the Cromwellians were more pragmatic and munitions grade arms and armor.
The so called 'mortuary' ( a misnomer) was used thoroughly on both sides.
Naturally basket hilts (which are not entirely Scottish) found use by most everyone. Actually the Scottish basket hilt was termed the 'Irish hilt' into Victorian times.

In border regions between England and Scotland, you might look into the groups known as 'Border Reivers'. These groups might be on 'one side' or the other, depending on the situation or times, and here the amalgam of weapon forms, styles etc. was completely catch as catch can. Through these channels weapons filtered through to any and ALL sides, and through all the many conflicts and actions.

The notion of 'regulation' patterns is in many regards, a kind of myth, though obviously such administrative protocols do of course exist, mostly from 19th century on. The commanders of units chose, commissioned and bought the arms they supplied thier troops with....it was entirely thier choice. However, obviously the favored forms being bought by others were easier to concede to, so some uniformity prevailed.

Officers were typically of high station or gentry, often nobility, so clearly the choice of weapons for them was carte blanche. However, often for battle or campaign, they used 'fighting weapons' which were in many cases similar to the forms used in other ranks.
While the ranks had weapons 'issued' from the racks, officers often had a 'stable' of swords to choose from. In actuality, many officers would take their dress type swords into battle as they were not expected to participate in combat....but direct troops and actions, so the sword was more used in that capacity. Naturally that often changed as situations developed.

I am hoping to hear more on the 1627 sword soon.

You bet Wayne.....I only remembered them because research on them just came up a month ago!!!
Harry who??????!!!! :)

I never actually watched more than a few minutes of a few episodes. Thought they were mostly silly and a bit childish for adults. I preferred Highlander, Gladiator, The last legion, and the Eagle more, tho i'd have liked the last 3 more if they'd used Pila and plumbata, as they would have in reality. Crassus against the Parthians, with it's golden ending would make a cool movie. As would the Romans revenge 60 years later.

Why are these frequently attributed to the 42nd even without regimental markings? Is it because the blades are not of the Jefferys/Drury backsword type and therefore presumed to be earlier (when the 42nd were the only Highland regiment in the British Army)?

Thank you,
VS

I think that the 'hilt form' is what is attributed to the 42nd, which is the collective regimental designation for the "Black Watch" battalions which were formed in 1739 as the 43rd but later renumbered 42nd. It seems there are few of these regimentally marked, but the hilt form is well established as being produced by Nathaniel Jeffries (3500 swords in 1759) and as a 'pattern' of 1757 . The Highland units comprised of 42nd went to North America in 1758 (to 1767) with enlisted men carrying these in French-Indian war.

Later, the last purchase of these was in 1775, and after battle of Long Island in 1776, the swords were collected and stored. The Black Watch at the end of the war went to Nova Scotia in 1783, and swords were only carried by officers and NCO's.

By 1770s, Dru Drury had taken over the business and both he and Nathaniel Jeffries had produced these swords.

I think this is the reason for the collective classification of these particular enlisted mans basket hilt as 'Black Watch' is because of this rather broad classification for the Highland Regiments in America using them.

This is a very large thread so not sure which post you are referring to as far as the sword with Farara . Most of the blades are marked Jefries or Drury and if Farara it would be an import from Solingen.

Thank you, Jim. I can understand the hilt form being attributed to the 42nd. I’ve seen some sales listings which seem to imply the swords (with non-Jefferys/Drury blades) are for the 42nd. Without regimental markings or other very strong evidence, I personally wouldn’t confidently state that a sword with this pattern hilt was used by someone in the 42nd.

Thanks again,
VS

I agree VS, that would be a bit irresponsible to classify any type of sword to a regiment etc. without markings or provenance, though it is OK to note that it is 'of the type' used accordingly. What I was noting is that Jeffries and later Drury were prolific suppliers of this munitions grade hilt form (it seems Harvey had a few).

I have one that I've had since the 70s which was remounted with a M1788 light cavalry saber blade, and would suspect it was taken from the stores of these collected after 1784 when they ceased being issued to infantry.
Possibly it was remounted for militia or yeomanry during the 1793+ concerns over possible French invasion etc. hard to say really, but pretty interesting saber.

I got most info from "Swords for the Highland Regiments 1757-1784". Anthony Darling, 1988.

Jim,
I was also using Darling as a reference, which is why I was confused since Darling is careful to not offer conjecture and only states regimental affiliation when his examples have the proper markings. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective on these interesting early regimental swords,

All the best,
VS

Absolutely, and as you well note, Darling was extremely cautious, in fact as you know, he had that one instance of '42' on the one example, which was noted as specifically 'unusual'. Though I've learned so much all these years, I still learn virtually every day, thanks to queries and discussions as here with you.

The regimental markings situation with British weapons in the 18th century are fascinating because they are so mysterious and not necessarily standardized nor always accurately recorded.